Fwd: I wonder what is being going on

[shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>]

Dear Area Director,
Routing Working Group,
IETF

I am writing to with the intention to resolve the conflict
between draft-shyam-site-multi and RFC 8028,
RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming.

I had raised the issue to IESG and IAB earlier.
Recently IAB has released a report as a reply to my input.
I am quoting IAB's response and attaching the file of IAB response
as well.

IAB report states:

On point 2, the IAB understands from a review of the datatracker that the
documents are still under review for publication by the ISE. The IAB does
not direct the ISE to publish specific documents; the stream’s editorial
independence is its key feature. If the ISE does publish the documents, the
IAB believes it will join a longer conversation on the topic of source
address based routing, and that this would not normally imply any change of
status of RFC 8028 or other documents that form part of that conversation.
Other relevant work includes RFC 1970, RFC 2461, RFC 4861, RFC 5533, RFC
7048, and any number of related working group discussions.

This is just a statement with over simplification
without getting into the details of solution for
site multihoming.

The term 'source address based routing' is nothing new,
but how it is supposed to be used to solve what kind of
problem is the matter of concern.

Traditionally routing is based on destination address
and there are multiple protocols like RIP, BGP, OSPF
and each has got its own flavor and use.

Documents like RFC 1970, RFC 2461, might have used the term
'source address based routing', but none of them
specified how it is to be used to solve the problem
of site multihoming. Otherwise, what is the use of writing
another document like RFC 8028?

Let me describe once again how draft-shyam-site-multi
has tackled the issue of routing associated with site
multihoming:

It is neither completely 'source address based routing'
nor completely 'destination address based routing',
but it is the combination of both.

1. To communicate from one host to another within the
same customer site, it is traditional 'destination
address based routing'.

2. To communicate from a host of one customer site to a
host of another customer site, it is neither completely
'source address based routing' nor completely 'destination
address based routing'. To achieve this with only 'source
address based routing' or only with 'destination
address based routing', it requires the routing table
of the entire world to be brought in, which is a
very costly approach. To solve this issue it uses 'source
address based routing' from the source host to the customer
edge router of that customer site and from CE router of
first customer site to the destination host using 'destination
address based routing'. In short it is described as 'default
routing based on source domain of the source address of
the outgoing traffic'.

This unique solution was first introduced in
section 2.4.1 of draft-shyam-mshn-ipv6-07.txt (from
which draft-shyam-site-multi was derived). RFC 8028 just
elaborates this solution. RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa
-multihoming are also based on the same solution.

I would request IETF to show me a document where
this solution was provided earlier. If any such
document exists, I withdraw everything that I claim.
Otherwise, I would request IETF to revoke RFC 8028,
RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming. They can
be reproduced by making a reference to
draft-shyam-site-multi showing what they are trying to
achieve on top of whatever has already been stated in
draft-shyam-site-multi. This is how contribution of
the contributors of RFC 8028, RFC 8043
and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming will be properly
evaluated.
Thanks and regards,
Shyam

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: I wonder what is being going on
To: shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>, <
[e-mail]>


Hi Shyam,

Please direct your comments to [e-mail].

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 8:27 PM, shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>
> Hi Alissa,
>
> I am writing to you as I am not fully
> aware of the process of publication of a RFC.
>
> There was a last call review date on 02-19-2019 for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming.
>
> I have said many times earlier that the
> basic principle based on which RFC 8028, RFC 8043
> and draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
>  are written, i. e. "default routing based on
> source address of outgoing packets" was first
> introduced on draft-shyam-site-multi.
>
> I had written earlier to AD Mr. Martin Vigoureux that
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
> should make a reference to draft-shyam-site-multi
> with an illustration what it is being trying to
> achieve on top of whatever has already been stated on
> draft-shyam-site-multi.
>
> Output of the review from Mr. Nicolai Leymann
> shows no major or minor issues found and the
> draft can be published with some minor editing.
>
> I get a feel that Mr. Nicolai Leymann is not
> aware of the existence of draft-shyam-site-multi.
>
> So, I would request the reviewer to go through
> draft-shyam-site-multi and suggest necessary changes
> required based on my input.
>
> By the way, IETF should consider publishing
> draft-shyam-site-multi prior to publishing
> documents that are dependent on draft-shyam-site-multi.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Shyam